Guido van Rossum <guido@python.org>: > Eric didn't merge it with fileinput, but instead checked in a separate > module "compilerlike". I have several comments on the code, but my > main complaint is about process. This is a random bit of code that > got checked in without any kind of discussion about whether it was > worth checking into the standard library, and whether this particular > implementation was right. There was some discussion afterwards, to > which Eric did not respond. Given that Eric apparently doesn't care > enough about his code to defend it, I propose to delete it from CVS. > > I'll do this as part of the 2.2a3 release which (given the encouraging > feedback so far) I'll try to do around Sept. 5. Now, wait a second! There *was* in fact discussion of this thing beforehand. Several listmembers said they thought it was a good idea. And I have seen *no* discussion *at all* since it was checked in. What is going on here? Is it possible that you are mistaken about the timing of the checkin, and that what you thought was discussion afterwards was discussion before? Or am I somehow missing listmail? As for process issues...I agree that we need better procedures and criteria for what goes into the library. As you know I've made a start on developing same, but my understanding has been that *you* don't think you'll have the bandwidth for it until 2.2 is out. -- <a href="http://www.tuxedo.org/~esr/">Eric S. Raymond</a> As war and government prove, insanity is the most contagious of diseases. -- Edward Abbey
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4